[Old York]

I was just trying to show the other side of the coin. There are real risks here.
However, I think that I would probably bid 4♣ Natural

With a useful trick, my partner would raise, and I might even get doubled

Tony

[gnasher]

I didn't mean "What else could it be if we decided to agree upon a meaning?", but "What else could it mean playing fairly standard methods without specific agreement about this bid?"

jdonn, on Jan 26 2010, 11:51 PM, said:

How about "both minors without saying anything about first round spade control"?

If we accept that both 4NT and 4♠ show the minors, I think it's normal for 4♠ to show spade control.

A possible alternative is that 4♠ shows both minors with strong slam interest, 4NT is weaker, and neither says anything specific about spade control. If partner is certain that I have a slam try in the minors, but uncertain about what I've shown in spades, I can live with it.

Quote

How about natural (I know that would be goofy at this vul, but it makes sense at others and I don't want to switch for each vul).

I doubt if I'm going to want to bid this often enough to justify forming an agreement about it. I'm happy to conclude that at this vulnerability it's not natural, and to not worry about the question of whether it means the same at other vulnerabilities.

Quote

How about a super strong hand with just hearts and first round spade control?

For most of us, there aren't any analogous situations where a four-level cue-bid shows a one-suiter. If there were, this might, I suppose, be a possibility. Otherwise, presumably a strong one-suiter would always be introduced via the standard methods of double-and-jump, double-and-cuebid, or 3♠-and-move.

Quote

Or the same but with hearts and a minor?

Wouldn't you bid 2♠ with that and then keep making forcing bids? I can't see how wasting two levels of bidding is going to help with slam investigations.


Nobody would choose an undiscussed double-jump cue bid when there's a descriptive alternative. The point about using it for both minors with first-round spade control is that there isn't a descriptive alternative - I don't think 4NT promises spade control.

[PrecisionL]

Hmmm, I thought 2NT in balancing sheet showed natural, balanced and 19-21 hcp. With good 15 to 18 double and then bid NT.

[Codo]

2 NT shows whatever you have agreed that it shows.
I have no idea what mainstream is, so I would never use it with an unknown partner.

And please show me a scenario where you can bid X and then 1 NT after they opened 1 ♠.... Okay, one of them redoubled or someone accept an insufficent bid. Not very likely that you can show 15-18 in your system.

[hanp]

gnasher, on Jan 27 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

If we accept that both 4NT and 4♠ show the minors, I think it's normal for 4♠ to show spade control.

I think that it is normal for 4S to show a better hand than 4NT, and say nothing about a spade control. I would for example texpect that my pick up partner assumes this for (2S) - 4S and (2S) - 4NT

[jdonn]

Gnasher I'm not saying I disagree with your meaning, I just think it goes quite far to say "what else could it mean?" as though it's obvious most will take it how you expect.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jan 27 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

Gnasher I'm not saying I disagree with your meaning, I just think it goes quite far to say "what else could it mean?" as though it's obvious most will take it how you expect.

Yes, that was probably overstating the case.